PALO ALTO — Regardless of backlash from residents, metropolis leaders have agreed to maneuver ahead with a protected parking plan at a neighborhood church to cope with the rise in folks dwelling in autos in Palo Alto.
Council members voted 5-2 this week — with Vice Mayor Lydia Kou and Councilman Greg Tanaka dissenting — to permit in a single day parking of as much as 4 autos on the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto on Louis Street, including to the eight different areas at two already current protected parking packages in church buildings throughout city.
For years Palo Alto has seen a soar within the variety of residents who stay in automobiles or RVs parked on metropolis streets, a consequence of the regional housing disaster which has led to related will increase in homelessness and folks dwelling in automobiles throughout close by cities as nicely.
The choice to permit the brand new program had initially been appealed by a gaggle of neighbors, a few of whom argued Monday they wanted extra time to evaluation it and handle security considerations. Whereas most people who spoke throughout Monday’s assembly urged the council to approve this system, most of the church’s neighbors like Randy Stolenberg pushed again towards the plan.
“As a member of the religion group, we applaud the religion group for serving to these much less lucky amongst us,” Stolenberg mentioned. “The proposed parking scenario, I really feel, doesn't service one other responsibility we've which is to look out for the harmless together with our kids.”
Stolenberg introduced up a number of security considerations different neighbors additionally had, together with whether or not folks taking part within the protected parking program needs to be subjected to background checks. And not using a background examine, Stolenberg mentioned, “it’s not protected for our kids to carry folks in who haven’t been appropriately checked.“
Stolenberg wasn’t alone in his considerations about public security. Karen Latchford, who lives a half block away from the church, mentioned dwelling in autos “shouldn’t be one thing we needs to be encouraging or establishing. Different folks against this system expressed fears about medication within the space, fireplace hazards and “peeping toms.”
Rohin Ghosh, a latest graduate of Palo Alto Excessive College, disagreed together with his neighbors’ feedback. He mentioned individuals who stay in autos “are residents of this metropolis similar to everybody else” and needs to be handled with dignity and have a “protected place to stay.”
“It’s fascinating about security dangers of bringing in new folks since you don’t hear that danger come up when simply some other individual strikes in subsequent door to you,” Ghosh mentioned. “If a brand new individual strikes in subsequent to me, I’m not going to be asking for background checks, I don’t suppose it needs to be any completely different right here. Simply because the folks transferring in listed here are poor doesn’t imply they’ll carry crime.”
Iris Zhang, a Ph.D. candidate at Stanford College and Palo Alto resident, additionally was troubled by her neighbors’ remarks about individuals who stay in autos. Zhang spoke concerning the hypocrisy of worrying about poor folks doing crimes whereas being surrounded by rich individuals who commit crimes.
“I’ve been a Palo Alto renter for 3 years and I've a job, and as you all know individuals who have secure locations to stay and who've jobs have by no means dedicated crimes, so please don’t fear about me or the longer term Elizabeth Holmes’s being incubated right here,” Zhang mentioned sarcastically. “All sarcasm apart, please don’t let these unfounded and unscientific bogeymen arguments cease us from doing the suitable factor right here.”
Council members who voted in favor of this system didn't touch upon their votes as this system was being thought-about below the council’s consent agenda. However Tanaka and Kou, who voted towards, expressed their very own considerations about this system.
Kou mentioned she felt “very disenchanted” by this system as a result of “there hasn’t been sufficient belief established” between the town and the group.
“I’d prefer to see that the suitable program is applied with quite a lot of the feedback and ideas so we will put collectively a program that strikes ahead with out appeals,” Kou mentioned. “There’s quite a lot of nasty issues that have been mentioned and it’s unlucky that it’s so divisive after we’re all attempting to do the suitable factor. There was an attraction and a rebuttal by our employees, it’s solely proper the neighbors can come right here and rebut the employees.”
Tanaka additionally frightened concerning the lack of assist in the neighborhood for this venture.
“There ought to’ve been extra dialogue on it,” Tanaka mentioned. “It’s unlucky we needed to vote up or down. The thought is that it’s a pilot program, a option to show success in the neighborhood so perhaps extra locations might do that. However by attempting to resolve these points, by forcing this subject, you construct animosity within the neighborhood and also you don’t arrange this system for fulfillment.”